Letters to the Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Although most scientists, at least in pubUc and official responses, do indeed try to be fair about rival formulations, the real pragmaticjudgment is reflected in the paths of research they actually pursue [I]. On this basis Lmg and associates righdy feel ignored, for in proportion to the total workers in die field diey are probably far fewer dian were Priesdey and feUow phlogistonists at the end ofdie eighteenth century. Thus, although Ling did publish a paper in thefournal of Physiobgy in 1978 [2], the Science Citation Index through February 1982 lists only 13 citations of this paper, and of these, six have Ling as the first author and two Negendank. Of the remaining five, two citations are from journals not in our library, one favors the association-induction hypothesis [3], one presents evidence against the hypothesis [4], and die last uses die reference to support the statement that die "large gradient in potassium . . . appears to be related to die presence of oxygen-dependent energy supply" [5]. By comparison, a paper on the reaction mechanism ofdie sodium pump published that year [6] has received 68 citations in the same period. The resolution of conflicts among rival hypotheses may not be based on congruity with ultimate trutii (still waiting to be revealed) or even in terms of the weight of available evidence (often against new formulations) [7]. More important , I think, is the perceived fruitfulness ofone formulation as a better guide to further studies and understanding. Each day every scientist must decide what next to do, and an essential role of any formulation is in selecting die next experiment from die universe of possibilities. Few would doubt diat binding is involved in cation disposition, and popular formulations of cellular calcium homeostasis include bodi pumps and binding, with the latter concept supported, and the formulation in turn strengthened, by the identification of calciumbinding proteins, leading to still further studies. Where die association-induction hypodiesis currendy fails may be considered (depending on one's vision of die future) as not necessarily due to the actual absence ofthe proposed high-capacity potassium-binding sites but as the inability to guide an effective search for diem if they do exist. REFERENCES 1. Robinson, J. D. The sodium pump and its rivals: an example of conflict resolution in science. Perspect. Biol. Med. 25:486-495, 1982. Permission to reprint a letter printed in diis section may be obtained only from die audior. Perspectives in Biology andMedicine, 26, 3 · Spring 1983 | 509 2.Ling, G. N. Maintenance of low Na+/high K+ levels in resting muscle cells./. Physiol. 280:105-123, 1978. 3.Edelmann, L. Potassium binding sites in muscle. Histochemistry 67:233-242, 1980. 4.Brown, A. D., and Sturtevant,J. M. State ofwater in extremely halophilic bacteria./. Membr. Biol. 54:21-30, 1980. 5.McKinley, B. ?.; Houtchens, B. ?.; and Janata, J. Continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid potassium during hemorrhagic shock in dogs. Crit. Care Med. 9:845-851, 1981. 6.Karlish, S. j. D.; Yates, D. W.; and Glynn, I. M. Conformational transitions between Na+-bound and K+-bound forms of (Na+ + K+)-ATPase studied widi formycin nucleotides . Biochim. Biophys. Acta 525:252-264, 1978. 7.Feyerabend, P. Against Method. London: Verso, 1978. Joseph D. Robinson Department ofPharmacology State University of New York Syracuse, New York 13210 Dear Sir: I read widi great interest Robinson's [1] essay "The Sodium Pump and Its Rivals: An Example ofConflict Resolution in Science." Having done so, I was led to read notonly the letters by Ling and Negendank [2] and Catchpole [3] but also die original article [4] diat sparked off die exchanges. Robinson has made out a good case for comparing the conflict between the sodium pump and the association-induction hypothesis of die present century with the oxygen/ phlogiston controversy of die late eighteenth. He has argued diat die position of Ling is analogous to diat ofJoseph Priesdey who, by die turn ofdiat century, was almost alone in upholding die phlogiston theory. Ling, on die other hand, has been able to attract collaborators and is dius not alone. This, I believe, has sòme interesting implications. Ling and Negendank [2] as...